Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 21:47:59 -0700 From: "Matt Simerson" <mpsimerson@hostpro.com> To: "'A G F Keahan'" <ak@freenet.co.uk> Cc: "'freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Optimal UFS parameters Message-ID: <8D18712B2604D411A6BB009027F644980DD7B4@0SEA01EXSRV1>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That's because any "consensus" would be inappropriate for mass consumtion. It really depends on a lot of fun things like the average file size and the number of files that the drives will be storing. For example, a mail server might want more inodes than a database server. The mail server will likely have a lot of tiny files where the database server would have a collection of much larger (a few k vs several mb's each). What makes you think the defaults are unreasonable? I set up a 300GB filesystem a few months ago. I ran a few numbers, calculated my average file size, compared it to the defaults and found they were very close to reasonable. When I get a couple hundred gig's of data on there I'll know better but I think my guess-timates are very good. Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: A G F Keahan [mailto:ak@freenet.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 7:53 PM > To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > Subject: Optimal UFS parameters > > What parameters should I choose for a large (say, 60 or 80Gb) > filesystem? I remember a while ago someone (phk?) conducted a survey, > but nothing seems to have come of it. In the meantime, the capacity of > an average hard drive has increased tenfold, and the defaults have > become even less reasonable. > > What's the current consensus of opinion? > > newfs -b ????? -f ????? -c ????? > > Thanks > > Alex Keahan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8D18712B2604D411A6BB009027F644980DD7B4>